Could a thermate reaction possibly produce a swiss-cheese effect on structural steel. Thats a yes or no?
Firstly a steel beam would have to be horizontal for the effect to take place and you wouldn't get any sulphidation either. I suppose you could make holes in steel (I hate the phrase "swiss cheese"), but I suspect you'd need a hefty amount of thermite to do it. Also the random erosion of the beams would point to a less uniform process so I'm hedging towards a no.
The truth movement could settle this one once and for all. How hard is it to get hold of A36 plate and thermite in the USA? and do the experiment. You're claiming it and the claim is on who now to prove it? Yes that's right truthers.
You have made many possible sources for the sulfur, the next step is to test those hypothesis under controlled conditions to prove whether they can actually produce holes in structural steel.
Would you object to Richard D. Sisson Jr’s approach post#498 in answering the question “when” was the steel evaporated (i.e. in the office fires or within the rubble pile)? If the latter can be ruled out and we know that the wtc 7 fires were not feed by diesel fuel do you think the that a normal office people in addition to all the sources you mentioned above could melt holes in structural steel?
“From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements.”
2002 -
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
Firstly all you need to know is that fires produce SO
2. I shall repeat for your benefit that there is nothing special about producing SO
2 by burning everyday materials. You do not need to get a selection of materials that might or might not have been in the WTC in order to burn them and analysis the gas. You won't find super-nano-SO
2 you'll just get a series of products that will include SO
2 in some quantity or percentage. Fires produce CO, CO
2 even phosgene and hydrogen cyanide.
No you don't need to do that to find out whether sulphidation, oxidation and the erosion (NOT evaporation - please stop using that term it's inappropriate) seen on those beams occurred during the fire or in the rubble pile. A simple accelerated corrosion test of A36 steel to an international standard an ASTM/BSI will do the trick. What you do is pick a particularly aggressive medium, one that would be far more aggressive than could be possible in WTC. Usually there is a time interval and limit (24hrs is not unusual) with a couple specimens. Seeing as WTC fell before 2hrs then you'd only need to do the ACT for 2 hours.
This would be very, very, cheap to do. Infact so cheap that the truth movement should be able to fund it with a whip round because literally you get a beaker, pour acid, drop steel in, wait 2 hours, examine steel.
I just cannot see how sulphidation, even in the form of H
2S would be sufficient to see the sort of erosion on some of those beams during the fire. There just isn't enough time for the diffusion of sulphur into the steel to occur. Times to collapse (from memory) were approximately 50 mins and 1h 40 mins (please someone correct me if wrong) therefore there just isn't enough time even with temperatures at 1000°C. You would need to have a reducing atmosphere and a very high concentration of H
2S for that to occur.
Most of the corrosion rates I've been able to see from papers deal with high temperature alloys in different environments and therefore corrosion rates are not that applicable as they tend to be in environments with lower temperatures than the fires or the pile <500°C. But it's not unheard of to see corrosion of 25mm (1in) per year below 500°C on materials that have been designed for high temperature environments (as opposed to plain carbon steel - 0.26C wt%)
The rubble pile would be different: prolonged, elevated temperatures, burning of allsorts of material will certainly cause steel to firstly burn but also corrode.
I will give you the same answer as TAM “We are all in a state of empirical ambiguity, or uncertainty, until hypothesis x, y, or z in relation to what caused the "hot corrosion attack on the steel" and “swiss-cheese effect” has been proven true or false.”
The fact you continually come up with different sources that have not be proven only serves to affirm the above statement.
No. I know what I'm talking about. I know for a fact that the corrosion mechanism is oxidation, sulphidation due to high temperature corrosion. I know that fact because I have read and more importantly understood what the report says. It is not gobledegook to me, it's meat and drink, because I have had to learn and understand this in order to a) pass my degree b) produce a final year project c) do my job.
Unfortunately I'm dealing with truthers and at the best of times they aren't very bright, but they also don't understand the scientific world or how you go about conducting experiments. They want everything recreated perfectly or they just won't buy it. Thermite/thermate is not going to produce Sulphidation let alone on the scale we have seen.
Secondly if you were looking to cut beams using thermite you wouldn't just plaster it all over because then it wouldn't cut anything and you'd be wasting the thermite. It wouldn't be efficient and you'd need to bring in hundreds of times the amount of thermite needed (which no truther has ever produced even a ballpark figure). You would only need enough thermite to severe a beam, so a) why waste time, effort, chance of getting caught bringing in more b) if an efficient cut is made we wouldn't see "swiss cheese".
Thermite/mate is such a ridiculous idea it's not true. Any sane reasonable person would understand it's not possible and the evidence shows that.
There you go again, drawing conclusions based on unproven assumptions. We do not know whether it occured in the rubble pile or during the wtc 7 fire. We do not know because no hypothesis has been empirically proven. That is why i would like to see further investiagtion on this particular issue. Wouldnt you? please re read Richard D. Sisson Jr’s approach post#498 to the question, that is how good science is conducted.
See above, corrosion rates just aren't that fast. I would be astounded, shocked even to see that rate of corrosion. If that were the case then we would see it in normal fires even when building didn't collapse and therefore it wouldn't be shocking. The reason it was shocking is because it's not an everyday or infact a twice in a lifetime thing for a metallurgist to see. The original thought is WTF! How did the fire do that? Then when you sit down and analysis it you realise that the fires couldn't have done it but that conditions in the rubble pile could.
Wtc 7 was not hit by an airliner.
Irrelevant. You are going to get the same erosion from an A36 steel beam if it's subjected to prolonged high temperatures and exposure to Sulphure irrespective of what building it came from.
I cited the source in a post to TAM. Why are the NFPA guidelines not found in debunekr sites? It doesnt take i high IQ to figure that one out.
The reason you don't want to tell us is because you have to pay for the book. Please quote, in context, the relevant sections.
Why would anyone want to check for "exotic accelerants" when the world and his dog saw an airliner slam into a building, set it on fire and then see the building collapse due to those fires, then the debris from the collapse set of other building fires?
It's like saying; it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it waddles like a duck, but lets just investigate the possibility that it's an elephant.
Only a nut case would come to the conclusion that they should be looking for other means of demolition. Why go to the trouble of rigging the buildings when the planes have already done the (psychological) damage. Where is the evidence? Where are the remains of thousands of devices that allowed the NWO to collapse the buildings? Not one has been found yet small personal affects and minutiae were found. The fires were unfightable. No surprise that the buildings collapsed due to their architecture.
